On recent claims concerning the Rh = ct Universe

The $R_{\rm h}=ct$ Universe is a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) cosmology which, like $\Lambda$CDM, assumes the presence of dark energy in addition to (baryonic and non-luminous) matter and radiation. Unlike $\Lambda$CDM, however, it is also constrained by the equation of state (EOS) $p=-\rho/3...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Melia, F.
Other Authors: The University of Arizona
Language:en
Published: OXFORD UNIV PRESS 2014
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/10150/615103
http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/615103
id ndltd-arizona.edu-oai-arizona.openrepository.com-10150-615103
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-arizona.edu-oai-arizona.openrepository.com-10150-6151032016-07-01T03:01:06Z On recent claims concerning the Rh = ct Universe Melia, F. The University of Arizona The $R_{\rm h}=ct$ Universe is a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) cosmology which, like $\Lambda$CDM, assumes the presence of dark energy in addition to (baryonic and non-luminous) matter and radiation. Unlike $\Lambda$CDM, however, it is also constrained by the equation of state (EOS) $p=-\rho/3$, in terms of the total pressure $p$ and energy density $\rho$. One-on-one comparative tests between $R_{\rm h}=ct$ and $\Lambda$CDM have been carried out using over 14 different cosmological measurements and observations. In every case, the data have favoured $R_{\rm h}=ct$ over the standard model, with model selection tools yielding a likelihood $\sim$$90- 95\%$ that the former is correct, versus only $\sim$$5-10\%$ for the latter. In other words, the standard model without the EOS $p=-\rho/3$ does not appear to be the optimal description of nature. Yet in spite of these successes---or perhaps because of them---several concerns have been published recently regarding the fundamental basis of the theory itself. The latest paper on this subject even claims---quite remarkably---that $R_{\rm h}=ct$ is a vacuum solution, though quite evidently $\rho\not=0$. Here, we address these concerns and demonstrate that all criticisms leveled {\it thus far} against $R_{\rm h}=ct$, including the supposed vacuum condition, are unwarranted. They all appear to be based on incorrect assumptions or basic theoretical errors. Nevertheless, continued scrutiny such as this will be critical to establishing $R_{\rm h}=ct$ as the correct description of nature. 2014-11-18 Article On recent claims concerning the Rh = ct Universe 2014, 446 (2):1191 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 0035-8711 1365-2966 10.1093/mnras/stu2181 http://hdl.handle.net/10150/615103 http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/615103 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society en http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/mnras/stu2181 © 2014 The Author Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Astronomical Society OXFORD UNIV PRESS
collection NDLTD
language en
sources NDLTD
description The $R_{\rm h}=ct$ Universe is a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) cosmology which, like $\Lambda$CDM, assumes the presence of dark energy in addition to (baryonic and non-luminous) matter and radiation. Unlike $\Lambda$CDM, however, it is also constrained by the equation of state (EOS) $p=-\rho/3$, in terms of the total pressure $p$ and energy density $\rho$. One-on-one comparative tests between $R_{\rm h}=ct$ and $\Lambda$CDM have been carried out using over 14 different cosmological measurements and observations. In every case, the data have favoured $R_{\rm h}=ct$ over the standard model, with model selection tools yielding a likelihood $\sim$$90- 95\%$ that the former is correct, versus only $\sim$$5-10\%$ for the latter. In other words, the standard model without the EOS $p=-\rho/3$ does not appear to be the optimal description of nature. Yet in spite of these successes---or perhaps because of them---several concerns have been published recently regarding the fundamental basis of the theory itself. The latest paper on this subject even claims---quite remarkably---that $R_{\rm h}=ct$ is a vacuum solution, though quite evidently $\rho\not=0$. Here, we address these concerns and demonstrate that all criticisms leveled {\it thus far} against $R_{\rm h}=ct$, including the supposed vacuum condition, are unwarranted. They all appear to be based on incorrect assumptions or basic theoretical errors. Nevertheless, continued scrutiny such as this will be critical to establishing $R_{\rm h}=ct$ as the correct description of nature.
author2 The University of Arizona
author_facet The University of Arizona
Melia, F.
author Melia, F.
spellingShingle Melia, F.
On recent claims concerning the Rh = ct Universe
author_sort Melia, F.
title On recent claims concerning the Rh = ct Universe
title_short On recent claims concerning the Rh = ct Universe
title_full On recent claims concerning the Rh = ct Universe
title_fullStr On recent claims concerning the Rh = ct Universe
title_full_unstemmed On recent claims concerning the Rh = ct Universe
title_sort on recent claims concerning the rh = ct universe
publisher OXFORD UNIV PRESS
publishDate 2014
url http://hdl.handle.net/10150/615103
http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/615103
work_keys_str_mv AT meliaf onrecentclaimsconcerningtherhctuniverse
_version_ 1718328678784434176